Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 07:25, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> From: "Jon Steeves" <Jon_Steeves@p...>
>
> > Doesn't the existence of a special version of canonical xml mean that there is no
> > canonical xml?
>
> No, it means there are multiple canons (lists) for different purposes. This is another
> capitalization issue: Canonical XML is not the only canonical XML, just as
> XML Schemas are not the only XML schemas, and the XML Infoset is not the only
> XML infoset.
Sure, but that's probably stronger than this in the case of
canonicalization: there cannot be a single canonical XML because
canonicalization is application dependent in a deep and complex
manner...
For instance, if you take W3C XML Schema snippets on which I came across
recently,
<xs:all>
<xs:element ref="foo"/>
<xs:element ref="bar"/>
</xs:all>
and
<xs:all>
<xs:element ref="bar"/>
<xs:element ref="foo"/>
</xs:all>
are equivalent while
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="foo"/>
<xs:element ref="bar"/>
</xs:sequence>
and
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="bar"/>
<xs:element ref="foo"/>
</xs:sequence>
are not and a canonicalization process for W3C XML Schema should
probably take this into account!
Elaborating around this no later than this morning on XMLfr, I came to
the conclusion that a formal language to describe canonicalization
processes (probably based on XSLT like Schematron) would be most
useful...
Any volunteers to start?
Eric
--
See you in Baltimore.
http://www.xmlconference.org/xmlusa/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
